I'm not quite buying the central point of this piece.

The author argues that transparency and liability are at odds, and cites Open Source Software as the main example to justify this.

But, there is a third aspect: Money. If you sell something to me, then I want both transparency and assurances of fitness for purpose. Even if it's not directly part of the contract, it's implied by consumer protection laws. (Maybe not everywhere, but .de seems to have pretty good consumer protection).

Open Source Software doesn't come without liability because of it's openness, but also because it's free as in beer.